I work PRN at a hospital, usually 36-48 hours per week. We have been told that because of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) we can no longer work more than 30 hours a week. While this doesn't officially take effect until Jan. 2015, our hospital is choosing to implement this now.
Of course, you can imagine, we are all upset, particularly those of us who work full-time hours. I choose to work PRN because I get paid more per hour and don't need benefits because I have insurance through my husband's employer.
Our hospital heavily utilizes PRN nurses both dedicated to a particular floor and a float pool. We all feel this is really going to negatively affect patient care and adequate staffing. I am going to find another PRN job to get the hours I need to work each week.
Back on topic, I completely agree that health insurance shouldn't be tied to your job, it's what we should do instead where there doesn't seem to be much consensus.
My hospital had been transitioning to more prn positions with no benefits prior to Obamcare, which left people working full time hours and getting no healthcare coverage. Requiring employers to provide insurance will help those people, although in your case where you are fortunate enough to get group insurance through another source it could also be a disadvantage.
With the exchanges, many if not most part time workers are actually better off if they aren't offered any health insurance at all so they can get an exchange plan, which will often cost them less than what their employee contribution would be through an employers plan. Those who work "just for the benefits" and have a high household income won't have the same benefit and may be worse off, since they will lose their 'subsidy' they get from the tax free status of the portion of their income that their health insurance plan accounts for.
I think to lose the small independent businesses would be a bad thing. I think that making large companies subsidize insurance is a good thing. Is 50 employees a "large company" I don't think so. There needs to be a bigger difference as to when an independent business owner can still expand and employ more workers and provide more jobs to the economy and the big business who are being cheap.
According to the Small Business Administration, a small business can employ up to 1,500 employees, with gross receipts of up to $21.5 million.
Specializes in Management, Med/Surg, Clinical Trainer.
Large numbers of employers were doing this long before anyone even started talking about reforming healthcare, only hiring people into part-time positions in order to avoid paying them benefits. It's been rampant in the business and finance worlds for many years. Provisions of the ACA certainly incentivize more employers to do this, but it's not anything new, and certainly not anything that the ACA "made completely legal." It's always been completely legal.
Yes this is true, but you miss the point. Prior to ACA the PRN nurses could work 31+ hours per week, while picking and choosing their shifts.
Now, they will be capped at 29 hours per week. Period.
If they were counting on 35 or 40 hours per week they will no longer get it.
If they were counting on 35 or 40 hours per week they will no longer get it.
If they need to "count on" a certain number of hours, they shouldn't be working prn. The flexibility for the employee in scheduling comes along with flexibility for the employer to not schedule them at all.
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
Businesses with 50+ eligible employees have been termed "large groups" by the health insurance industry for years. This is not new via the ACA.
Back to the new law...they have never been mandated by the government to provide insurance for these large groups of people on the company dime if the employee is over 30/wk or 120 days a year.
which still adds up to more money out of the employer pocket.
Specializes in Management, Med/Surg, Clinical Trainer.
If they need to "count on" a certain number of hours, they shouldn't be working prn. The flexibility for the employee in scheduling comes along with flexibility for the employer to not schedule them at all.
To your point, that group of nurses will no longer work the pool.
This means when the regular employees need vacations or days off there will less of a nurse pool to draw from. Hence, less time off will be granted. All of this stuff floats downstream.
Or they the hospital could hire an infinite number of prn's and keep their hours under 30/week. Same amount of PRN nursing hours but no insurance. It's silly for PRN's to whine about having hours cut. That is the essence of the contract between employer and nurse. It's a crapshoot how much you do or don't work.
In my company, ALL nurses are considered per diem regardless of hours (the norm is 48 hrs/wk). It's odd, because we have stable schedules and even accrue vacation time, but by labeling us "per diem," they have circumvented the ACA. It's amusing, because the office staff, janitorial staff and non-licensed minimum-wage employees will receive health care, but no one in nursing, PT or RT can. Funny how that works...
Per the OP, the company is not required to do this until next year, but they are starting it now. So, just to re-emphasize, the company is NOT MANDATED by the ACA to do this at this time. They are CHOOSING to do it now, and choosing to do it instead of offering health insurance.
Once again, companies are more worried about making money than taking care of their employees. Why is making a profit considered more important than people?
I'm still curious, Brandon, do you believe that your employer should also pay for your food, shelter, clothing and transportation? Why or why not?
This is the typical, 'extreme' right response used when conservatives get flustered, and want to deflect the topic away from the sole topic at hand, healthcare access, and shows your real feelings about your employees- the same employees you claim to be concerned about. Sorry, Charlie.
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
Back on topic, I completely agree that health insurance shouldn't be tied to your job, it's what we should do instead where there doesn't seem to be much consensus.
My hospital had been transitioning to more prn positions with no benefits prior to Obamcare, which left people working full time hours and getting no healthcare coverage. Requiring employers to provide insurance will help those people, although in your case where you are fortunate enough to get group insurance through another source it could also be a disadvantage.
With the exchanges, many if not most part time workers are actually better off if they aren't offered any health insurance at all so they can get an exchange plan, which will often cost them less than what their employee contribution would be through an employers plan. Those who work "just for the benefits" and have a high household income won't have the same benefit and may be worse off, since they will lose their 'subsidy' they get from the tax free status of the portion of their income that their health insurance plan accounts for.